Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
for the economy. and the transaction tax is being taken very seriously in europe and probably will happen there, even though the u.k. is kicking and screaming because they specialize in being the home of trading, whether trading in stocks or derivatives or anything else. they simply do not want that to be taxed. there are people in congress. i think wall street is now the number-one contributor to political campaigns. at least, it is in the running for number-one. i have been to washington many times and i'm involved with several groups that are trying to reform the business sector so that it can work, so that it can survive. it is very difficult because of the sheer amount of money that the finance sector in particular is pouring into lobbying and campaign contributions. it is very difficult. >> let's give a round of applause for lin. -- lynn. [applause] there is an opportunity for you to purchase and have the but signed. if you have court-further questions, she will be here signing books. thank you all and have a safe trip home. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [caption
is -- but shouldn't crease -- shouldn't greece all its own tax collection? >> let me start with the last question before i start giving out financial advisor. [laughter] greece certainly should focus on dealing -- not so much with tax collection, but what i call tax immunity. they have a very cozy system of tax immunity. the tragedy is when you have an economy like greece's going to a tailspin and you have a massive immunization of national income, and the central bank is effectively kaput, you can really improve your tax collection methods because there is no income tax. people just do not make money any more. even the rich do not make money. other than the money they have already accumulated through geneva or frankfurt. they are not making money. how can you improve your tax mechanism when there's no income to tax? that is the second question. the first question -- i am not worried about inflation at all. in this country, there is this fixation with quantitative easing. bernanke's attempt to stabilize the american economy. it is a policy that i have encountered ever since i came to this countr
on democrats to try to counter that immediately. senate democrats saying we passed a bill that raises tax rates on incomes over $250,000, we ran on this and this is what we are offering. house republicans were saying, no, we want to negotiate something, figure it out and send it to us. someone is going to have to move. the question is, who? the president met with senate majority leader harry reid before going to hawaii and his offer was to extend the tax cuts for incomes under $250,000, extend unemployment insurance benefits, and the lady across -- and then delay the across the board automatic cuts that are supposed to start january 1. that seems to be a non starter with republicans. it's hard to see where we go from here. host: have they been talking over the christmas break at all? also, one has been the role of -- what has been the role of senator mitch mcconnell? guest: the line that comes from the speakers office all the time is the line of communication remain open. i don't know how much talking they did as the president was in hawaii spending time with his family and the speaker was bac
, the end of the bush era tax cuts, the dreaded sequester, across the board cuts of $1.2 trillion in spending will begin to take effect the first of next year. the good news is the white house and republicans have been trading proposals and at least yesterday appeared to be moving closer together. i would have much preferred that they would be talking about a bigger package than they've discussed but nonetheless to reach a package that would resolve some of these issues would be an important step forward and i think help promote certainty that would be important to our economy. on the revenue side of the equation, i just want to remind you what it's taken in the past to balance the budget. we hear talk on average revenue is in the 18% of g.d.p. range n. getting back to average you will should be sufficient. the problem with that is we have never balanced the budget in the last 50 years based on 18% of g.d.p. in revenue. balancedtimes we've going back to 1969, you can see that revenue has been about 20% of g.d.p. you can see from this chart. 19.7% of g.d.p. in 1969. 1999 it was 19.
is restricting jobs and tax base. i would encourage people to get involved in your institute and fight this because it is not doing anything for the economy or our country. merry christmas to everybody. host: john, thank you for the call. what is the history of the cato institute, founded in 1977? guest: it was founded to promote liberty and economic freedom, starting in san francisco, and then move into washington, d.c. milton friedman admitted the kindle institute has never sold out. we still work for liberty and freedom. i've been working with the cato institute since 1995 and full time since 2007. host: mary, fort washington, maryland. democrat. caller: i would suggest thinking that if you follow all of the problems come at the end of the trail you will find the smiling grin of greed. that is what i think caused it. for myself, naca program helped us, taking us out of the ugly arm. my mortgage is $964 a month, which will allow us to stay in our home comfortably. guest: people blame things like a financial crisis on greed, but greed is not changing. it has been with us for hundreds
financed? guest: it has been a self funded program. it is funded by payroll taxes. there's a 12.4% tax on wages up to about $110,000. you make more than that then any money you make over that is not taxed for social security. it is divided equally between your employer and the worker. for the past two years, the workers share has been reduced. that has saved, by the way, if you are an average worker that is $1,000 tax cut. host: we can see in this pie chart where that money comes from. payroll taxes making nearly 83% and interest and taxation of benefits. we see the payouts. benefits, 90% of the money spent goes to benefits and administrative expenses and retirement. what are some of the other numbers we're seeing? guest: the interest is from the trust fund. so when the last time social security in 1983 they put in a system that generated more money in tax revenue than were being paid out in benefits. a trust fund was built up. so when social security had that additional money, the treasury holds it. they invest it in treasury bonds and those bonds earn interest. that is where that big
. i thought, back there in mojave are 400 employees and their families and everyone of them pay taxes. you know, only half the people in the country paid taxes. every one of those people play it -- pay taxes. they would not have been there. that relieves the burden on all the other taxpayers. the government job burdens the other taxpayers. to me, that kind of struck me as something as a significant personal accomplishment. i never realized or even thought about that until after i retired. ok, let me find the clicker and we will get going. let's try the button. ok. we are going to talk about manned space flight. the first flight we are going to talk about is that wonderful first nine years, at eight years really. the boss docked, upper left -- this chart shows every one of the launch systems developed in the world during that short time. there are nine launch systems designed and flown during that time. bostok, the red stone, the atl as, the x-15, then gemini, the system, the russian soyuz. and my favorite -- the lunar lander. it is great to have a large system where you do not need a
from the automatic spending cuts that go into effect in january and deal with a saner tax system. we can follow a framework as recommended by the simpson- bowles commission that will allow us to protect benefits but will also make some of the tough choices that kelly was talking about. i think we have to put everything on the table for that kind of a deal. we have to look at revenues. we have to look of the domestic side of the budget. we of the look of the defense -- we have to look at the defense side. and we have to look at the mandatory program. i think we do have to make some tough choices. but i also believe that getting that done will provide tremendous certainty for businesses in this country, for families so they know what we are expecting. and that that will really give our economy a shot in the arm, and get money off the sidelines and allow business to invest in with that creates jobs. that is what we need to do for the future. now, the other party that i have been working on and that we have made some progress but we will continue is the country's energy policy. my focus
are increasing taxes. that's one way of looking at it. the way most people look at it i tested two bytes record of popularity approval rating is that this is a congress that has been defined by dysfunction in gridlock, a congress in which half a loaf has never been better than none. there were compromises really seem to be a foreign policy, naming a policy for him to the world's great deliberative body. >> you actually think that people are granted 2010 it got elected or the people ran before and it now ascended to positions of leadership believes that go with a solution or they were like that to not do things i supposed to do things? >> well, again, from a class of 2010 and our effort to the the 87 freshman, the so-called tea party class of the 112 congress, their belief is they are doing precisely what the people who elected them did, which is rolled back obama initiatives, cut spending. a lot that the debt ceiling should not be increased under a circumstances where they feel like i was a failure. but they basically believe their job is first to obstruct barack obama and once there is a repub
of legislation to abolish coal tax. byrd voted against it. byrd tried to explain he was not opposed to the intent of the legislation, but it goes against the state rights. therefore, congress cannot step in and say -- byrd said to do it right. he said he could not vote on it if it was going to be done this way. two years later, congress comes back with a constitutional amendment and byrd voted for it. he voted for it once they did it right with a constitutional amendment. he filibustered, it is true. there was a 14 hour filibuster. read through the thing. everyone points out him being racist. read throughout the filibuster. there is not one racial thing. the whole thing is basically constitutional law. he makes clear to make it right before he can support it. he agrees that there should be no discrimination in the standards. the objective sought -- the objective here is a worthy one. he concurs with the objective. here he is talking about literacy tests. the constitution does not limit to that. he opposed them on that measure. it proposes two different ways to do this constitutionally. that is w
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10